Opinion
No. 76-3266.
April 17, 1978.
Robert J. Allen, Jr., Legal Dept., Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corp., Oakland, Cal., Jane L. McGrew, Thompson P. Powers, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants.
F. W. Middleton, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for Kaiser Aluminum, Etc.
John C. Falkenberry, Birmingham, Ala., Michael H. Gottesman, Washington, D.C., Jerry L. Gardner, Jr., New Orleans, La., for United Steelworkers of America.
Kenneth B. Peterson, Cloyd R. Mellot, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Alcoa, amicus curiae.
Burt A. Braverman, Washington, D.C., Austin B. Graff, Richmond, Va., for Reynolds Metals, amicus curiae.
Michael R. Fontham, New Orleans, La., John W. Finley, Jr., New York City, for appellants, amicus curiae.
Richard S. Ugelow, Robert T. Moore, James P. Turner, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S. E. E. O. C., amicus curiae.
Arnold Forster, New York City, for Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith, amicus curiae.
Christopher S. Bond, Gene E. Voigts, Kansas City, Mo., for Great Plains Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.
Wayne T. Elliott, Ben B. Blackburn, Atlanta, Ga., for Southeastern Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court of Louisiana; Jack M. Gordon, Judge.
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC [2] (Opinion Nov. 17, 1977, 5 Cir., 1977, 563 F.2d 216).
The Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and the Court having been polled at the request of one of the members, of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petitions for Rehearing En Banc are also DENIED.
On rehearing it is suggested that our quotation from the panel opinion in Carter v. Gallagher, 452 F.2d 315, 325 (8th Cir. 1971) is inappropriate since the en banc court, 452 F.2d 327 et seq., in fact instituted a modified minority hiring quota on rehearing. Carter, however, was a case in which past racial discrimination in hiring at the "plant" — in that instance a fire department — was established. Our case is the contrary, and we are not persuaded that the en banc determination there is at variance with our decision here. At all events, we agree with the quotation as applied to our context.